Who is Responsible for a Crime? The Victim or the Perpetrator?

[Sunstone]

Does the victim of a crime ever bear a measure of guilt or moral responsibility for the crime?

For instance, is the victim of a murder, rape, or robbery ever morally responsible for being victimized?

It seems to me that, if we say the victim has even an iota of moral responsibility for the crime committed against them, then we are at best lessening the moral guilt of the perpetrator, and the perpetrator's responsibility to have not committed the crime. In practice, that can easily slide into actually condoning or excusing the crime to some extent or another.

Usually, when this topic is debated, some one person or another mentions the fact that people can increase their risk of becoming victims by their actions.

That strikes me as both true and obvious. However, I do not believe that someone who increases their risk of becoming a victim thereby incurs any moral guilt for becoming a victim. Instead, I believe the entire burden of guilt remains with the perpetrator. If it didn't -- if the perpetrator's guilt were lessened or reduced by victimizing people who were "asking for it" -- that would amount to an argument that perpetrators had to one extent or another a right to victimize people. Such an argument would be heinous.

Now, the thought occurs to me that English lacks a much needed word. A word that means the same as "responsibility" but without any implications of guilt, especially moral guilt.

The closest English might have to such a word could be the phrase, "personal responsibility", but only if and when "personal responsibility" is understood to be distinct from moral responsibility.

If English had such a word, then it would be much easier to express the idea that a person should take personal responsibility not to be mugged by avoiding a known den of thieves without implying that they are in any way the morally guilty party if they actually do enter a den of thieves and are mugged.

Your thoughts, please?

 

[turk179]

In some ways it would be like saying that the victim of a crime was deserving to be a victim. A good defense lawyer would use that as an argument when defending his/her criminal client.
I say no.

 

[HonestJoe]

It seems to me that, if we say the victim has even an iota of moral responsibility for the crime committed against them, then we are at best lessening the moral guilt of the perpetrator, and the perpetrator's responsibility to have not committed the crime.

I disagree with this principle. I think it's perfectly possible to attribute some level of responsibility (moral, even criminal in some contexts) for the crime to the victim without affecting the scope or scale of responsibility of the criminal. I see the two things as being pretty much entirely separate.

In practice, that can easily slide into actually condoning or excusing the crime to some extent or another.

In practice certainly it can be seen that way, not least because of the concept you're supporting above. That means such things need to be discussed carefully but I think it would be a bad reason to ignore or dismiss any responsibility on victims of crime.

Usually, when this topic is debated, some one person or another mentions the fact that people can increase their risk of becoming victims by their actions. That strikes me as both true and obvious. However, I do not believe that someone who increases their risk of becoming a victim thereby incurs any moral guilt for becoming a victim.

Look at it this way. If a the actions of a third party increase the risk of you being the victim of crime, do they carry any moral responsibility if you are? What if the actions of the third party causes you both to be victims of a crime? Logically, the people who increases the risk and the people who suffers as a result are distinct, even if they are (or include) the same individuals. Again, real world practice makes things complicated and emotional but that doesn't change the fundamental principles.

How about taking away the active criminal for a moment. Imagine you own a nightclub and you chain up the fire doors to stop the break-ins. If there is a fire and people die because they can't get out of the chained up fire doors, you're going to be very much responsible for their deaths. Equally, if the fire happens when the club is closed and you're the only one who dies, you're still responsible for the death, which happens to be your own.

Now imagine the fire was started by an arsonist (oblivious to the fire door situation). Their responsibility for their arson doesn't impact your responsibility for chaining the fire doors? Equally, your responsibility for chaining the doors doesn't impact their responsibility for starting the fire. Each action and responsibility needs to be assessed and judged separately. Obviously actions like chaining up fire doors is infinitely more significant than walking alone on a dark street but that doesn't mean the latter shouldn't be considered at all.

Now, the thought occurs to me that English lacks a much needed word. A word that means the same as "responsibility" but without any implications of guilt, especially moral guilt.

I see your point but I think it's as much about how people think rather than the words they use. However you phrase it, some people will associate applying the "personal responsibility" with a "moral responsibility" (which I do anyway) or a concept of "guilt" (which I don't). You can't always encapsulate complex concepts within single words or phrases. Sometimes we just need to use more words to properly explain what we're trying to get across. The real problem is that "more words" is very unfashionable at the moment.

 

[Robert.Evans]

......Usually, when this topic is debated, some one person or another mentions the fact that people can increase their risk of becoming victims by their actions.

That strikes me as both true and obvious. However, I do not believe that someone who increases their risk of becoming a victim thereby incurs any moral guilt for becoming a victim. Instead, I believe the entire burden of guilt remains with the perpetrator.......

You said it all there I feel

 

[oldbadger]

In some ways it would be like saying that the victim of a crime was deserving to be a victim. A good defense lawyer would use that as an argument when defending his/her criminal client.
I say no.

Huh?
All defenders do use that.... Mitigating circumstances such as provocation, incitement, temptation, etc.......

And if you say 'No', then why do you lock your windows and doors, place your money in a bank, fit alarms, etc etc etc?

 

[Augustus]

d obvious. However, I do not believe that someone who increases their risk of becoming a victim thereby incurs any moral guilt for becoming a victim. Instead, I believe the entire burden of guilt remains with the perpetrator. If it didn't -- if the perpetrator's guilt were lessened or reduced by victimizing people who were "asking for it" -- that would amount to an argument that perpetrators had to one extent or another a right to victimize people. Such an argument would be heinous.

If you go to a slum area of the developing world where people are unable to afford to properly feed their children and leave a giant pile of unattended valuables in full view of people, you bear some moral responsibility if some get stolen while your back is turned.You created a situation which tempted desperate people into committing a crime that they would not otherwise have done.

This is not the same as saying wearing revealing clothes tempts people into rape so it is the victims fault. Most people would agree that non-violent theft to feed your children, or yourself, is a morally defensible crime.

If your lack of self awareness creates the conditions in which someone is tempted into committing a morally defensible crime then you are, to some extent, morally responsible.

 

[turk179]

Huh?
All defenders do use that.... Mitigating circumstances such as provocation, incitement, temptation, etc.......

And if you say 'No', then why do you lock your windows and doors, place your money in a bank, fit alarms, etc etc etc?

The same reason everyone else does but does that mean I deserve to be robbed or attacked because I'm too lazy or forgetful to lock up at night. That it's partially my fault that someone was trolling the neighborhood looking for an easy house to hit. If you do lock the doors but they are a bit of a cheap lock does that mean you're partly to blame for the crime. No one asks to be a victim so taking partial or all responsibility for someone elses actions is ridiculous in my opinion.

 

[Laika]

I'm going with "No". it's more of a gut feeling than a reasoned argument. this could end up with blaming the victim which is not a good move.

 

[Revoltingest]

Tough question.
After much thought, I voted to blame the perp instead of the victim.

We have 2 useful words in English:
Culpability - At fault for a wrongdoing
Responsibility - A duty to do or avoid something

But there's a problem with "responsibility".....people generally hate to take it. It takes planning, smarts & initiative. It doesn't blame anyone else for personal woe. This makes some people so uncomfortable that they'll conflate it with culpability so as to make it easier to attack any suggestion they exercise it. What about a new word to replace "responsibility", you ask? It would quickly suffer the same fate of becoming a pejorative.

 

[Ultimatum]

"Does water make you wet?"
^This question is just as challenging.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Does the victim of a crime ever bear a measure of guilt or moral responsibility for the crime?

For instance, is the victim of a murder, rape, or robbery ever morally responsible for being victimized?

It seems to me that, if we say the victim has even an iota of moral responsibility for the crime committed against them, then we are at best lessening the moral guilt of the perpetrator, and the perpetrator's responsibility to have not committed the crime. In practice, that can easily slide into actually condoning or excusing the crime to some extent or another.

Usually, when this topic is debated, some one person or another mentions the fact that people can increase their risk of becoming victims by their actions.

That strikes me as both true and obvious. However, I do not believe that someone who increases their risk of becoming a victim thereby incurs any moral guilt for becoming a victim. Instead, I believe the entire burden of guilt remains with the perpetrator. If it didn't -- if the perpetrator's guilt were lessened or reduced by victimizing people who were "asking for it" -- that would amount to an argument that perpetrators had to one extent or another a right to victimize people. Such an argument would be heinous.

Now, the thought occurs to me that English lacks a much needed word. A word that means the same as "responsibility" but without any implications of guilt, especially moral guilt.

The closest English might have to such a world could be the phrase, "personal responsibility", but only if and when "personal responsibility" is understood to be distinct from moral responsibility.

If English had such a world, then it would be much easier to express the idea that a person should take personal responsibility not to be mugged by avoiding a known den of thieves without implying that they are in any way the morally guilty party if they actually do enter a den of thieves and are mugged.

Your thoughts, please?

Legally and morally, my answer is an absolutely and unequivocally "no".

In terms of tort, according to the justice system when it comes to reparations for damages from the criminal or civil act, the courts do recognize a role that the victim plays that may lessen the reparations or sentencing...called contributory negligence.

Contributory negligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is in accordance to reparations, however, and not in accordance to measure of guilt or culpability. It isn't against the law to not lock your doors or windows, but if a burglar is brought to trial, according to contributory negligence, it's possible that the victims of the crime may not receive full compensations for their losses or the perpetrator may not be punishment to the fullest extent of the law.

What the problem is in contributory negligence and it's socio-cultural place in typical dialogue of culpability - and especially when it comes to crimes such as rape and sexual assault - is it's understanding of the victim being negligent as a primary role in the occurrance of the crime, and not an afterthought that is ONLY considered once guilt is established solely on the part of the perpetrator and sentencing is currently under consideration.

A few problems the culture has currently in defining justice for rape crimes:

1) Our typical discourse in social custom is to place negligence on the victim in sexual assaults as the primary role. Such discourse is evidence of a clandestine sexually fascist culture, that places more freedom for what is deemed sexual activity on one demographic and less freedom for what is deemed sexual activity on another demographic based entirely on gender and predetermined gender roles.
2) Investigation processes for rape and sexual assault seeks evidence through circumstantial means, which is only effective if a perpetrator is a serial perpetrator and has multiple victims over a considerable length of time. This leaves no room for investigation into sexual assault for one-time offenders and does not consider one-time offenses to be on a different level of social impact as a serial rapist....the two are not the same and should not be treated as such. Like Murder 1, Murder 2, and Manslaughter are ALL viewed differently in the justice system for homicide, rape and sexual assault must have the same complexity of culpability and intent in determining guilt.
3) Social custom also assumes rapists to be evil, monstrous, non-human, instead of human beings who have committed a violent crime. We all know of somebody who wished harm on another person and spoke of beating them up...and if they did, they'd be charged with a crime of assault and battery and taken to court for such. But these are not people who suddenly become cartoonish monstrous entities in the eyes of the public. Rapists, however, become difficult to connect to as human beings. The accused, if seen by the public as guilty according to their own evidence, are not seen as human anymore. Justice then becomes nearly impossible....how do you convict a demon?
4) Socio-cultural expectations of human sexuality within hetero-normative relationships remain deeply embedded. "Men are highly visual"..."Women developed breasts entirely for eros"..."Wives must perform her wifely duties"...."Men will stray if they don't get what they want." What we say and what we hear repeatedly in the private and public spheres influence our expectations for entitlement and/or sacrifice. Women, to this day, are expected to sacrifice their reproductive decisions for the benefit and entitlement of another and are shamed if they don't sacrifice. Men, to this day, are expected to be influenced by the direction their erect penises are pointing but must also be highly discreet lest they be called "perverts" or "creeps", so they are shamed for their intentions in spite of being called to act in accordance to an entitlement for their ejaculation (I have personally called it an ejaculatory bias in culture). These complexities are part of the formation of what is typically called Rape Culture, though many balk at the description because of the Rapist = Monster negative connotation.

I believe that what will help is to more clinically define rape through a lens of varied culpability and intent on the part of the perpetrator rather than the "monster" depiction, comprehensive sex education elevating informed consent as a primary chapter, continuing to discuss female sexual agency and autonomy as a preferred reality, and investigating in law enforcement of sexual assault charges in the same manner as they investigate charges of kidnapping and hostage criminal acts.

All that and de-escalating contributory negligence on the part of the victim to it's rightful place as an afterthought during a sentencing hearing will help alleviate the problems that arise with "responsibility" debates about rape.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

Does the victim of a crime ever bear a measure of guilt or moral responsibility for the crime?

For instance, is the victim of a murder, rape, or robbery ever morally responsible for being victimized?

It seems to me that, if we say the victim has even an iota of moral responsibility for the crime committed against them, then we are at best lessening the moral guilt of the perpetrator, and the perpetrator's responsibility to have not committed the crime. In practice, that can easily slide into actually condoning or excusing the crime to some extent or another.

Usually, when this topic is debated, some one person or another mentions the fact that people can increase their risk of becoming victims by their actions.

That strikes me as both true and obvious. However, I do not believe that someone who increases their risk of becoming a victim thereby incurs any moral guilt for becoming a victim. Instead, I believe the entire burden of guilt remains with the perpetrator. If it didn't -- if the perpetrator's guilt were lessened or reduced by victimizing people who were "asking for it" -- that would amount to an argument that perpetrators had to one extent or another a right to victimize people. Such an argument would be heinous.

Now, the thought occurs to me that English lacks a much needed word. A word that means the same as "responsibility" but without any implications of guilt, especially moral guilt.

The closest English might have to such a world could be the phrase, "personal responsibility", but only if and when "personal responsibility" is understood to be distinct from moral responsibility.

If English had such a world, then it would be much easier to express the idea that a person should take personal responsibility not to be mugged by avoiding a known den of thieves without implying that they are in any way the morally guilty party if they actually do enter a den of thieves and are mugged.

Your thoughts, please?

Looks like you've used "world" a number of times when you meant to use "word".

 

[oldbadger]

The same reason everyone else does ............

What's that them....... what reason is that?
People reduce risk for many differing reasons.
Some people couldn't care less about crime prevention from a moral point of view, they simply must conform to the demands and requirements of, say, an insurance company which won't pay out for a transferred-risk 'loss' unless it's surveyor's decisions are met with.
There are many many reasons for deterring crime.

.........but does that mean I deserve to be robbed or attacked because I'm too lazy or forgetful to lock up at night.

.......... a bloke leaves his keys in his car ignition when he pays for his fuel at a service-station and a street-wise kid jumps in and nicks it. It's found 'totalled' five miles away. The victims mates all agree that he's a total idiot and asked for it. Do you know, that type of scenario is so 'believable' that it has to be mentioned.

That it's partially my fault that someone was trolling the neighbourhood looking for an easy house to hit. If you do lock the doors but they are a bit of a cheap lock does that mean you're partly to blame for the crime.

No....... but if you made an error of judgement and it cost you your health for ever, how does justice help you now?

No one asks to be a victim so taking partial or all responsibility for someone elses actions is ridiculous in my opinion.

.... but you would..... in real life if you made a silly mistake about your own safety and security.... you would. You'd never forgive yourself.

Dale Carnegie wrote a poem about a man who always attributed all blame to perpetrators, rather than thinking out how he could have avoided the 'trouble'. It went something like this:-
I'll tell you a story about Jeremy Bray,
Who died maintaining his right of way,
He was right, dead right, as he sped along,
But he's just as dead as if he were wrong.

 

[mainliner]

Does the victim of a crime ever bear a measure of guilt or moral responsibility for the crime?

For instance, is the victim of a murder, rape, or robbery ever morally responsible for being victimized?

It seems to me that, if we say the victim has even an iota of moral responsibility for the crime committed against them, then we are at best lessening the moral guilt of the perpetrator, and the perpetrator's responsibility to have not committed the crime. In practice, that can easily slide into actually condoning or excusing the crime to some extent or another.

Usually, when this topic is debated, some one person or another mentions the fact that people can increase their risk of becoming victims by their actions.

That strikes me as both true and obvious. However, I do not believe that someone who increases their risk of becoming a victim thereby incurs any moral guilt for becoming a victim. Instead, I believe the entire burden of guilt remains with the perpetrator. If it didn't -- if the perpetrator's guilt were lessened or reduced by victimizing people who were "asking for it" -- that would amount to an argument that perpetrators had to one extent or another a right to victimize people. Such an argument would be heinous.

Now, the thought occurs to me that English lacks a much needed word. A word that means the same as "responsibility" but without any implications of guilt, especially moral guilt.

The closest English might have to such a world could be the phrase, "personal responsibility", but only if and when "personal responsibility" is understood to be distinct from moral responsibility.

If English had such a world, then it would be much easier to express the idea that a person should take personal responsibility not to be mugged by avoiding a known den of thieves without implying that they are in any way the morally guilty party if they actually do enter a den of thieves and are mugged.

Your thoughts, please?

its cool to be a criminal ......... Remember how cool things was at school

it all stems from teenage foolery Imo

Ps......its not cool to be a criminal,but you know how diffecult it is to get a teenager to listen .......they think its cool



good people don't tend to become criminals unless there's lots of money involved......... Thus becoming that teenage fool again



teenagers is where the problems stem from .... Gangs , drugs , etc etc


they just think its cool




even people like Charles manson ....... He thought he was cool with his gang and his guns .. Ha fool !!



people don't become hilters at 40 years old ....... It stems from teenage foolery or coolery as some may say

 

[turk179]

What's that them....... what reason is that?
People reduce risk for many differing reasons.
Some people couldn't care less about crime prevention from a moral point of view, they simply must conform to the demands and requirements of, say, an insurance company which won't pay out for a transferred-risk 'loss' unless it's surveyor's decisions are met with.
There are many many reasons for deterring crime.

People lock their doors for the same reason. To keep others out. Whether they are trying to keep people out for insurance reasons or for a moral support or a false sense of security, it's all to achieve the same goal, to keep people out.

.......... a bloke leaves his keys in his car ignition when he pays for his fuel at a service-station and a street-wise kid jumps in and nicks it. It's found 'totalled' five miles away. The victims mates all agree that he's a total idiot and asked for it. Do you know, that type of scenario is so 'believable' that it has to be mentioned.

That is totally believeable but it is also believable that in this scenario your mates are jack wads.

No....... but if you made an error of judgement and it cost you your health for ever, how does justice help you now?

.... but you would..... in real life if you made a silly mistake about your own safety and security.... you would. You'd never forgive yourself.

You're probably right about that but I still really don't see how one could take partial or all responsibility for a crime committed against me whether i wrongly blamed myself or not.

Dale Carnegie wrote a poem about a man who always attributed all blame to perpetrators, rather than thinking out how he could have avoided the 'trouble'. It went something like this:-
I'll tell you a story about Jeremy Bray,
Who died maintaining his right of way,
He was right, dead right, as he sped along,
But he's just as dead as if he were wrong.

What I got out of this is even if you lock your doors your a dead man lol. For what it's worth, I agree with the poem.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does the victim of a crime ever bear a measure of guilt or moral responsibility for the crime?

For instance, is the victim of a murder, rape, or robbery ever morally responsible for being victimized?

It seems to me that, if we say the victim has even an iota of moral responsibility for the crime committed against them, then we are at best lessening the moral guilt of the perpetrator, and the perpetrator's responsibility to have not committed the crime. In practice, that can easily slide into actually condoning or excusing the crime to some extent or another.

Usually, when this topic is debated, some one person or another mentions the fact that people can increase their risk of becoming victims by their actions.

That strikes me as both true and obvious. However, I do not believe that someone who increases their risk of becoming a victim thereby incurs any moral guilt for becoming a victim. Instead, I believe the entire burden of guilt remains with the perpetrator. If it didn't -- if the perpetrator's guilt were lessened or reduced by victimizing people who were "asking for it" -- that would amount to an argument that perpetrators had to one extent or another a right to victimize people. Such an argument would be heinous.

Now, the thought occurs to me that English lacks a much needed word. A word that means the same as "responsibility" but without any implications of guilt, especially moral guilt.

The closest English might have to such a world could be the phrase, "personal responsibility", but only if and when "personal responsibility" is understood to be distinct from moral responsibility.

If English had such a world, then it would be much easier to express the idea that a person should take personal responsibility not to be mugged by avoiding a known den of thieves without implying that they are in any way the morally guilty party if they actually do enter a den of thieves and are mugged.

Your thoughts, please?

I've thought about this a bit and came to a realization: there's another party here with its own set of responsibilities.

Along with the victim and the perpetrator, there's also society... or "the state", the justice system, or whoever has responsibility for actually making sure the consequences and punishments for crime are carried out, and who has responsibility for protecting victims and potential victims.

In that context, I think certain actions on the part of the victim can elicit a reaction on behalf of those protectors - who, at the end of the day, are all of us - something like "if this person doesn't care about protecting their own safety, why should I?"

So... while the victim of a robbery isn't responsible for the robbery, if they got robbed while walking down the street waving bundles of cash while shouting insults at passersby, I think that this may warrant a lower responsibility on behalf of the authorities and justice system that makes this case less of a priority than it would be otherwise.

 

[Quintessence]

The word "responsible" doesn't require moralizing, though I realize it is commonly presumed to be so in common parlance. We do already have an alternative language for this, though, through the sciences. The sciences aren't allowed to moralize things, as value judgements have no place in it. If you want to analyze the causes of an event, you look for possible causal variables and set up a study to see which variables contribute most (statistically) to the outcome. In the case of a crime, anything that was involved in creating that situation is a causal variable, and that necessarily includes the "perpetrators" and "victims."

So there's your term. Causal variable. And, in looking at causal variables, it is very important to not fixate on the humans. That's a superficial analysis. We know that situational factors drive the lion's share of human behavior, not their personality or egos. Look at environment, look at culture, etc.

 

[Wirey]

Occasionally a crime victim bears some responsibility. Leave your keys in the ignition at the mall, and your car gets stolen, try not to look surprised. It doesn't make what the other guy did right, but it does mean you're a moron.

 

[Quintessence]

Occasionally a crime victim bears some responsibility. Leave your keys in the ignition at the mall, and your car gets stolen, try not to look surprised. It doesn't make what the other guy did right, but it does mean you're a moron.

Hardly. Let's not be guilty of the fundamental attribution here and mistake a person's behavior for their overall personality or capabilities.

 

[Wirey]

Hardly. Let's not be guilty of the fundamental attribution here and mistake a person's behavior for their overall personality or capabilities.

Okay. Leave your keys in your car and a 14 year old steals it and runs someone down in a crosswalk and you're Man of the Year. Your actions have weight, and you are responsible for them. Everyone makes mistakes, but that doesn't release you from the necessity of accepting responsibility for your misstakes. See, I put an extra 's' in mistake, and I acknowledge that it's my faullt. The extra 'l' in fault wasn't me, though. It was society.